Asteroid mining

Opps wrong thread 😛

Originally posted by twhitehead
But why? What are the figures that don't add up for you? All you have said so far is that space programs are over budget. So are many terrestrial mines.

Some space programs go over budget. Often it's not the fault of the scientists and engineers working on a project. At NASA, for instance, there's the problem of uneven funding by Congress and flakey administrators playing politics. But sometimes all the king's horses and all the king's men just underestimate the technical challenges of an undertaking.

Extraterrestrial "mining" certainly has already been done. The Soviet Union first returned soil from the moon back in 1970 in a fully automated mission that involved no cosmonauts. In a way it was nearly (but not quite) as grand an achievement as landing men on the moon.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You want an itemized bill? I can't supply one. I'm just guessing at the $2,000 billion price tag based on what all needs to be set up. Sending a robotic probe to an asteroid to take some pictures is one thing, but sending a platoon of robots to actually dig into an asteroid and mine ore, along with all the tools and equipment that'll have to go with it believe it. If you have stock in the company then I wish you the best of luck.

I understand all that.

And I have seen all the predictions 'futurists' were making back then and laughed at quite a few of them.

They re-ran "Space 1999" in 1999 which was very funny.

However it's not enough to just say that all predictions are going to be way to optimistic and wrong because
some of the predictions were correct and some things developed much faster then people thought.


The important thing is WHY the predictions were wrong, which is not necessarily an unknown... And usually
it was computing power and programming sophistication. (although it wasn't always)

People massively underestimated how hard many things are in computing.

The reason we don't have robot butlers is not because the materials are too expensive or that we can't build
robots with the dexterity and control needed.

It's because after 50+ years of research we still haven't cracked many of the apparently simple tasks that the
computers running the robot would have to do.

However after 50 years of research we may not have cracked the problems, but we have a pretty good idea of
what it will take to crack the problems, both in terms of the raw processing power needed (thank you moors law)
and the programming challenges of the problem with a good idea of how to solve them.

So someone making predictions now about the future of robotics is doing so with 50 yrs worth of accumulated knowledge
and thought on solving these problems.


Or you could take fusion, the whole "it's always 50 yrs away" adage.

50~60 yrs ago they promised we would have fusion in 50 yrs, it's 50~60 yrs later and they are still promising it in 50 yrs
(30 actually), It's always going to be 50 yrs away...

Well no, because in those 50 years we learned an awful lot about fusion, and built lots of experimental reactors, and
now have a pretty good idea of precisely how hard fusion is and how to achieve it.

The predictions today are based on a sound footing and knowledge base compared to the predictions back then that were built
on a vague theoretical idea of what was needed and hope.




So you guess that it would take $2 trillion odd to start mining an asteroid...

Well lets take a look at that...


Space x heavy lifter can place 53 metric tons in LEO for $125 million.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php

That means that $10 billion (a drop in your $2 trillion) buys you around 4,200 tons (rounded down) in LEO. (80 launches)

Assuming that your mining company spends 500 million a year keeping everyone on payroll and overhead before everything else,
your 80 robots you are launching cost $400 million each and take 4 years to design then 10 years to build and 2 to launch you
have now got $32 billion for the 80 robots and $8 billion in overhead so we are now at a running total of $50 billion, and 16 yrs on the clock.

The robots are really simple devices basically consisting of an engine, nav' system, solar panels, and grapples/drills for attaching to
an asteroid. I assumed that the company had lots of design issues and cost overruns to have 80 of these cost $400 million each.

They use solar power with a small nuclear battery backup to power their slow but highly efficient ion drives.

All they do is fly out to an asteroid, latch on, slowly stop any rotation, then slowly shift the orbit so that it swings in behind the earth
gets caught in the moons gravity, enters lunar orbit, and then is transferred to earth's orbit (safest approach minimum to nil risk of earth
collision).

You pick a small 100 meter metal rich asteroid (assuming that it's roughly spherical for mass volume estimates).
Works out using same assumptions as I used earlier in the thread at about 1.37 million tons total mass.

This takes 15 years, so we add another $7.5 billion of overhead to the total and 15 yrs to the clock for a running total of $57.5 billion and 31 yrs.


Now you have got your asteroid into High/medium earth orbit.

While this was going on you have not been idle, in the 31 yrs you have taken to collect the asteroid you have been designing and building a
system to ferry the materiel to earth.

Your plan is to ferry it all to earth in giant 'inflatable' heat shield cones (think Apollo capsules but much bigger.)

Each one is capable of ferrying 10 k tons, meaning you need approximately 140 to drop the entire asteroid.

Each also needs a rocket motor to do the de-orbit burn and direct it to your desired landing area. (the pacific)

These take two 50 ton launches each so that's 280 launches so that's an extra $35 billion and each one costs 200 million to make so that's an extra
$56 billion taking our running total to $148.5 billion.

Now you also need to break the asteroid up into 140 chunks while in orbit and load those chunks into the re-entry vehicles and i am going to
make the most expensive assumption in that you have to do this with manned ships/robots.

I am just going to assume that this costs as much as the ISS and entire shuttle program combined and rounded up $350 billion.

And that breaking up the asteroid and landing it takes 10 years (another $5 billion in overhead).

So we end up with the total operation taking 41 years and costing roughly $504 billion.


What's the payday?

Well using the same estimates as I used earlier this roid would contain $692 billion in platinum alone. That's not counting the gold, and other platinum
group metals and things like iron and nickel. This is worth in total well over $1 trillion.

Which means for this hopelessly pessimistic scenario with an undersized roid you still make well over 50 billion per year of this project in profits.

And don't get anywhere near having to spend $1 trillion let alone $2.


This is the dumb expensive and slow method of asteroid mining with today's technology and it still works out as wildly profitable.


Particularly when I point out that you don't need 80 rockets to move these roids.
You could for example send 4 to each one and collect 20 roids in the same mission.
Stagger their arrival so that you have a continuous supply arriving at the earth.



Now I realise that I am picking numbers out of thin air here but I would be fascinated to learn where you think any of them might be underestimates.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Now I realise that I am picking numbers out of thin air here but I would be fascinated to learn where you think any of them might be underestimates.

The thing is, problems that cause the cost of a venture to double or quadruple are always the problems you never foresaw or even guessed at.

Also there are accidents. Rockets explode, robots break down -- you don't seem to factor in the cost of such inevitable losses, at least not entirely. You're definitely going to have to shepherd each asteroid in such a way that if everything fails at any point in the journey, the result will be that the asteroid has no chance of hitting Earth and wiping out a city or two. If an astronaut in Earth orbit gets killed on the job, or a whole crew is lost, you'll be shut down for perhaps a year and incur billions in lost revenue and litigation. Consider the experience of BP and the Deepwater Horizon, times ten.

When things go wrong in space, they tend to go terribly wrong.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The thing is, problems that cause the cost of a venture to double or quadruple are always the problems you never foresaw or even guessed at.

Also there are accidents. Rockets explode, robots break down -- you don't seem to factor in the cost of such inevitable losses, at least not entirely. You're definitely going to have to shepherd each asteroid i epwater Horizon, times ten.

When things go wrong in space, they tend to go terribly wrong.

Did you miss the part where I sent 80 rocket engines to move this roid where I only need one?

Is 80 fold redundancy not enough?

And I set the cost of the 'manned' part (which really should be, and will be, robotic) as costing as much as
the ENTIRE shuttle program plus the ISS without factoring in the fact that a large part of the ISS budget
was shuttle launches so they are counted twice and then I rounded that UP.

How much more over estimation and redundancy do you want?
Given that those projects were spectacularly over budget and behind schedule and were generally bureaucratic
nightmares.


And the approach I talked about is ridiculously safe with multiple redundancies.


You approach the earth moon system on such a course as you need to slow down to enter into orbit so
engine failure causes you to miss and just fly off into space.
And you first enter into lunar orbit once there, you very gently tip it over the halfway point so it's orbit
switches from lunar to earth.

Then you slowly adjust the orbit down from high to medium and from eccentric to circular.

At all times staying way way above the atmosphere maintaining multi-thousand year orbit stability.




In reality you would start with a much smaller project with a smaller starter roid to build your expertise and
develop the technology but I went with a slightly larger (still small) roid due to the ludicrous over estimates
I was making on costs.


And btw deep water horizon times 10 is still less than I was estimating for the costs of doing this.


Also shut down by who?
I wouldn't in reality send people up to do this when I can use robots but in the event I did send up people... shut down by who?


This is a private civilian project, there is little to no legislation or laws governing space travel, it's out of everyone's jurisdiction.

I just base my launch site somewhere without many laws (near the equator that's not hard) and a few people dying really
wont be a problem (legally as opposed to ethically).

But suppose I was shut down for 2 yrs (like the shuttle was) and have to incur extra costs and pay out compensation for the deaths...

That puts maybe another 20 billion on my total and 2 yrs on the clock... which does not scupper the project.

And that's assuming that my ridiculous over estimate of that part of the project wasn't already including this.



EDIT:

The thing is that this was over estimating by somewhere between a factor of 5 and an order of magnitude. (assuming actual mission
cost of between 50 and 100 billion as opposed to 500 billion) you are asking me to accept an over estimate that's 4 times that, or 20 to
40 times what a reasonable estimate of this is likely to be...

You can't hand wave into existence cost over runs on that scale.

I need a reason to accept that you believe this will cost 20 to 40 times more than any reasonable estimate of how much an asteroid
mining operation will cost.

I mean a cost overrun factor of 2~5 I could easily accept, but 20~40...

Originally posted by googlefudge
Did you miss the part where I sent 80 rocket engines to move this roid where I only need one?

Is 80 fold redundancy not enough?

And I set the cost of the 'manned' part (which really should be, and will be, robotic) as costing as much as
the ENTIRE shuttle program plus the ISS without factoring in the fact that a large part of the ISS budget
was will cost.

I mean a cost overrun factor of 2~5 I could easily accept, but 20~40...

Numbers that you continue to blithely state are extremely pessimistic I continue to maintain are wildly optimistic. So there we stand.

But something occurs to me just now. There is always the danger of an asteroid coming out of nowhere on a direct collision course with Earth. It's going to happen sooner or later. A good argument can be made in favor of setting up a planetary defense system of some kind to steer such asteroids onto safer paths. Surely much of the infrastructure for such a defense system could do double-duty as part of a mining operation, and then government and military resources could be marshaled alongside private capital to get the ball rolling on this.

EDIT: You can be sure that as soon as some company starts making a buck off of outer space, international and national laws will be passed that will enable governments to regulate those companies and make a buck off of them. Also, the Chinese and Russians are not going to sit by idly and watch privateers push huge rocks around high over their heads that could easily be used as devastating weapons. They'll have something to say about that, without a doubt.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Numbers that you continue to blithely state are extremely pessimistic I continue to maintain are wildly optimistic. So there we stand.

But something occurs to me just now. There is always the danger of an asteroid coming out of nowhere on a direct collision course with Earth. It's going to happen sooner or later. A good argument can be made in favou ...[text shortened]... ly be used as devastating weapons. They'll have something to say about that, without a doubt.

Numbers that you continue to blithely state are extremely pessimistic I continue to maintain
are wildly optimistic. So there we stand.

Well... ok. But thus far you have produced nothing other than pure unadulterated pessimism as a
reason for your estimate. My numbers are based on real world costs that I have amplified.
I had my 'manned' part cost more than the two most expensive space missions in history combined and rounded up.
(in today's money the Apollo missions cost around $109 billion which is less than either the ISS or the Shuttle program)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#Program_costs_and_cancellation

I sent 80 probes each costing a ludicrous amount given that all they were were engines attached to robotic clamps
with no complex or expensive scientific instruments and with no concessions for bulk manufacturing.
And given that as I say in reality you only send a few I have something like a 20 fold over estimate of this part alone.

I used the real life costs of a real world launch vehicle, with no allowance fro technological improvements and cost reductions
over the next 30~40 years.

I had everything move more slowly than in reality so it would take longer to get anywhere.

I mean seriously, Other than unsupported pessimism what grounds do you have for suggesting that with modern technology
why would it cost 3.5 times more than the Apollo program, that landed men on the moon, to bring down some rock from earth orbit?

Do you seriously think that sending 80 robots to do the job of 4 is not enough redundancy?

Just how ridiculously pessimistic do I have to be for you to accept my estimates?

Heck I had the company spend half a billion a year, every year, in overheads before I added in any design or construction costs.

I am sorry, but if you want to convince me that I am not massively over estimating how expensive and hard this will be, you will
have to provide reasons, not just pessimism.

But something occurs to me just now. There is always the danger of an asteroid coming out of
nowhere on a direct collision course with Earth. It's going to happen sooner or later. A good argument
can be made in favor of setting up a planetary defense system of some kind to steer such asteroids onto
safer paths. Surely much of the infrastructure for such a defense system could do double-duty as part of
a mining operation, and then government and military resources could be marshaled alongside private
capital to get the ball rolling on this.

Actually this is backwards, the techniques and technology for asteroid mining are good for redirecting rogue
asteroids that threaten the earth. The reason being that unlike an asteroid defence system that does nothing
but cost money, asteroid mining makes money and is useful all the time instead of once every few tens of
millennia.

EDIT: You can be sure that as soon as some company starts making a buck off of outer space, international and national
laws will be passed that will enable governments to regulate those companies and make a buck off of them. Also, the Chinese
and Russians are not going to sit by idly and watch privateers push huge rocks around high over their heads that could easily be
used as devastating weapons. They'll have something to say about that, without a doubt

Well first the thing about using asteroids as weapons is that we are not talking here about moving big asteroids,
nothing that will alter the climate, these are small asteroids comparable with large nuclear devices.

Hitting a city with one requires precision aiming and in the event of an accident they are almost certainly going to hit somewhere
uninhabited.

However if someone did try to use one of these things as a weapon, you can see it coming for months at least.

And asteroids this small have recently been shown to be easily destroyed buy a midrange nuclear device, even as little as hours out.

You can't change the velocity of these asteroids rapidly without strapping on a nuclear reactor and torch drive system.

So any orbital shift is very slow and the plume from the ion drive is visible across the solar system, so you can't mount a sneak attack
with one of these. So the threat from these is minimal.

Couple this with the fact that as much as the major powers would like to extend their rule into space, they are even more keen that
their competitors don't. Which is why almost all the international law that does exist about space is aimed at preventing governments
exerting control over it.


And governments do make money from this, they tax the profits and such of the corporations who are for the time being, still on earth.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Numbers that you continue to blithely state are extremely pessimistic I continue to maintain
are wildly optimistic. So there we stand.

Well... ok. But thus far you have produced nothing other than pure unadulterated pessimism as a
reason for your estimate. My numbers are based on real world costs that I have amplified.
I had my 'm tax the profits and such of the corporations who are for the time being, still on earth.

Well... ok. But thus far you have produced nothing other than pure unadulterated pessimism as a
reason for your estimate.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, though there is some conviction underlying my position.

Your "robots" will certainly have to be sturdier than the average NASA probe, since they'll be physically grappling with a massive object and manipulating it for, by your estimate, over a quarter of a century. Even during NASA's "faster, cheaper, better" phase it still cost around $100 million to send a probe to Mars to take some pictures and scratch some rocks. Or consider the cost of a Boeing jet...

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

...which can top $330 million and yet is not designed to operate without maintenance for 30+ years in the harsh conditions of space where cosmic rays, temperature extremes and micrometeorites abound. And all jumbo jets have to do is take off and land under the guidance of pilots who are not lightminutes away. I think your robots are going to cost much more than $400 million apiece, not just because they'll have to be so rugged and have so many moving parts, but also because they'll have to have much more sophisticated onboard computers and cybernetic components. Just the nuclear fuel itself could cost millions, 'cause you can't get that at your average BP petrol station. You'll counter that you've already "built that in" in some "overhead" figure you cooked up somewhere, but then that leaves you less overhead wiggle room when the next complication arises.

Incidentally, speaking of micrometeorites, you'll have to make sure that when you're busting up your rocks up there in orbit, you do so with almost surgical precision and cleanliness, or else in a few years you'll find your work area positively hailing with damaging and lethal space junk. It's a significant problem in low Earth orbit already. "Environmentally friendly" mining will add to the cost, but machinery does break, parts will go flying, and debris will occasionally be released despite your best efforts. If your junk eventually wrecks telecommunications satellites or a space station, expect multibillion-dollar lawsuits.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I'm just playing devil's advocate here, though there is some conviction underlying my position.

But you cant seem to come up with a valid reason for pushing your estimates over 10 times higher than googlefudge's upper bound.
Are you seriously claiming that mining one asteroid should cost more than all space activity carried out by all nations on earth to date?
Although I realise there are some new challenges to worry about, but most of the technical stuff is only really significant in that it will require uplifting a lot of mass into space, but googlefudge has clearly shown that that is not that expensive to do. I doubt robotically mining an asteroid will be more complicated technically than say the Hubble space telescope or Mars rovers.

Incidentally, speaking of micrometeorites, you'll have to make sure that when you're busting up your rocks up there in orbit, you do so with almost surgical precision and cleanliness, or else in a few years you'll find your work area positively hailing with damaging and lethal space junk. It's a significant problem in low Earth orbit already.
If it is decided that this is a problem they could wrap the whole operation with a cloth of some sort - meteorite and all. If they do it before bringing the asteroid into orbit, there would be a reduced risk or micrometeorites.

Originally posted by Soothfast
...which can top $330 million and yet is not designed to operate without maintenance for 30+ years in the harsh conditions of space where cosmic rays, temperature extremes and micrometeorites abound. And all jumbo jets have to do is take off and land under the guidance of pilots who are not lightminutes away.

I suspect that a jumbo jet actually has more wiring, instrumentation etc than the typical spacecraft.

Forget meteorites, think big!

http://www.space.com/12731-diamond-alien-planet-discovered-neutron-star.html

For comparison, I recently heard that a large copper mine in the Congo has a budget of around USD 90 million for 10 years, (or USD 9 million per year). I can't guarantee this figure is accurate but its what I heard from someone related to the project.